Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority.
(17/3566)
OBJECTIVES: To develop, from simple clinical factors, criteria to identify appropriate patients for referral to a surgeon for consideration for arthroplasty, and to rank them in the queue once surgery is agreed. DESIGN: Delphi process, with a panel including orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, general practitioners, epidemiologists, and physiotherapists, who rated 120 case scenarios for appropriateness and 42 for waiting list priority. Scenarios incorporated combinations of relevant clinical factors. It was assumed that queues should be organised not simply by chronology but by clinical and social impact of delayed surgery. The panel focused on information obtained from clinical histories, to ensure the utility of the guidelines in practice. Relevant high quality research evidence was limited. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. MAIN MEASURES: Appropriateness ratings on a 7-point scale, and urgency rankings on a 4-point scale keyed to specific waiting times. RESULTS: Despite incomplete evidence panellists agreed on ratings in 92.5% of appropriateness and 73.8% of urgency scenarios versus 15% and 18% agreement expected by chance, respectively. Statistically validated algorithms in decision tree form, which should permit rapid estimation of urgency or appropriateness in practice, were compiled by recursive partitioning. Rating patterns and algorithms were also used to make brief written guidelines on how clinical factors affect appropriateness and urgency of surgery. A summary score was provided for each case scenario; scenarios could then be matched to chart audit results, with scoring for quality management. CONCLUSIONS: These algorithms and criteria can be used by managers or practitioners to assess appropriateness of referral for hip or knee replacement and relative rankings of patients in the queue for surgery. (+info)
Newcastle satisfaction with nursing scales: an instrument for quality assessments of nursing care.
(18/3566)
OBJECTIVES: To test the validity and reliability of scales for measuring patients' experiences of and satisfaction with nursing care; to test the ability of the scales to detect differences between hospitals and wards; and to investigate whether place of completion, hospital, or home influences response. DESIGN: Sample survey. SETTING: 20 wards in five hospitals in the north east of England. PATIENTS: 2078 patients in general medical and surgical wards. MAIN MEASURES: Experiences of and satisfaction with nursing care. RESULTS: 75% of patients approached to complete the questionnaires did so. Construct validity and internal consistency were both satisfactory. Both the experience and satisfaction scales were found to detect differences between randomly selected wards and hospitals. A sample of patients (102) were sent a further questionnaire to complete at home. 73% returned this; no significant differences were found in either experience or satisfaction scores between questionnaires given in hospital or at home. CONCLUSION: Scales to measure patients' experiences of and satisfaction with nursing in acute care have been developed and found to be valid, reliable, and able to detect differences between hospitals and wards. Questionnaires can be given before patients leave hospital or at home without affecting scores, but those given at home have a lower response rate. (+info)
Does a dedicated discharge coordinator improve the quality of hospital discharge?
(19/3566)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the role of a discharge coordinator whose sole responsibility was to plan and coordinate the discharge of patients from medical wards. DESIGN: An intervention study in which the quality of discharge planning was assessed before and after the introduction of a discharge coordinator. Patients were interviewed on the ward before discharge and seven to 10 days after being discharged home. SETTING: The three medical wards at the Homerton Hospital in Hackney, East London. PATIENTS: 600 randomly sampled adult patients admitted to the medical wards of the study hospital, who were resident in the district (but not in institutions), were under the care of physicians (excluding psychiatry), and were discharged home from one of the medical wards. The sampling was conducted in three study phases, over 18 months. INTERVENTIONS: Phase I comprised base line data collection; in phase II data were collected after the introduction of the district discharge planning policy and a discharge form (checklist) for all patients; in phase III data were collected after the introduction of the discharge coordinator. MAIN MEASURES: The quality and out come of discharge planning. Readmission rates, duration of stay, appropriateness of days of care, patients' health and satisfaction, problems after discharge, and receipt of services. RESULTS: The discharge coordinator resulted in an improved discharge planning process, and there was a reduction in problems experienced by patients after discharge, and in perceived need for medical and healthcare services. There was no evidence that the discharge coordinator resulted in a more timely or effective provision of community services after discharge, or that the appropriateness or efficiency of bed use was improved. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a discharge coordinator improved the quality of discharge planning, but at additional cost. (+info)
Clinical audit and the purchaser-provider interaction: different attitudes and expectations in the United Kingdom.
(20/3566)
OBJECTIVES: To explore and describe the views on clinical audit of healthcare purchasers and providers, and in particular the interaction between them, and hence to help the future development of an appropriate interaction between purchasers and providers. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews. SETTING: Four purchaser and provider pairings in the former Northern Region of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. SUBJECTS: Chief executives, contracts managers, quality and audit leaders, directors of public health, consultants, general practitioners, audit support staff, and practice managers (total 42). MAIN MEASURES: Attitudes on the present state and future development of clinical audit. RESULTS: Purchasers and providers shared common views on the purpose of clinical audit, but there were important differences in their views on the level and appropriateness of involvement of health care purchasers, integration with present NHS structures and processes (including contracting and the internal market), priority setting for clinical audit, the effects of clinical audit on service development and purchasing, change in behaviour, and the sharing of information on the outcomes of clinical audit. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in attitudes towards, and expectations of, clinical audit between health care purchasers and providers, at least in part due to the limited contact between them on audit to date. The nature of the relation and dialogue between purchasers and providers will be critical in determining whether clinical audit meets the differing aspirations of both groups, while achieving the ultimate goal of improving the quality of patient care. (+info)
Promoting audit in primary care: roles and relationships of medical audit advisory groups and their managers.
(21/3566)
OBJECTIVES: To investigate perceptions of family health service authorities and medical audit advisory groups of advisory groups' involvement in clinical audit and wider quality issues; communication with the authorities; and manager satisfaction. DESIGN: National postal questionnaire survey in 1994. SETTING: All family health services authority districts in England and Wales. SUBJECTS: Chief executives or other responsible authority officers and advisory group chairpersons in each district. MAIN MEASURES: Priorities of advisory group and authority for audit; involvement of advisory group in wider quality issues; communication of information to, and contacts with, the authority and its involvement in planning the future work of the advisory group; and authorities' satisfaction. RESULTS: Both groups' views about audit were similar and broadly consistent with current policy. Advisory group involvement in wider quality issues was extensive, and the majority of both groups thought this appropriate. Much of the information about their activities collected by advisory groups was not passed on to the authority. The most frequent contact between the two groups was the advisory group's annual report, but formal personal contact was the most valued. Most authority respondents thought their views had been recognised in the advisory group's planning of future work; only a small minority were not satisfied with their advisory groups. Dissatisfied respondents received less information from their advisory groups, had less contact with them, and thought they had less input into their plans. There was some evidence that advisory groups in the "dissatisfied districts" were less involved in clinical audit and with their authorities in wider quality issues. CONCLUSIONS: Most advisory groups are developing their activities in clinical audit and have expanded their scope of work. The quality and availability of information about progress with audit is a cause for concern to both groups. (+info)
What quality measurements miss.
(22/3566)
Measurable indices of health care quality are all the rage these days. But physicians know that not everything in health care can be quantified. If reportable numbers become our principal focus, what is in danger of falling through the cracks? (+info)
Reducing perinatal mortality in developing countries.
(23/3566)
The perinatal mortality rate (PNMR) is a key health status indicator. It is multifactorial in aetiology and is significantly influenced by the quality of health care. While there is an ethical imperative to act to improve quality of care when deficiencies are apparent, the lack of controls--when an interventions is applied to an entire service--makes it difficult to infer a causal relationship between the intervention and any subsequent change in PNMR. However, by specifically measuring avoidable perinatal deaths (those due to error or omission on the part of the health service), this limitation is partially overcome, and the impact of the intervention can be more rigorously evaluated. This paper reports the impact of perinatal audit in a rural African health district between 1991 and 1995. A total of 21,112 consecutive births were studied: the average number of deliveries increased by 31% from 325 to 424 per month. The PNMR (birth weight > or = 1000g) in 1991 was 27/1000, increased to 42/1000 in 1992, and fell steadily to 26/1000 in 1995 (40% reduction; p = 0.002). The proportion of avoidable deaths fell from 19% in 1991 to zero in the second half of 1995 (p = 0.0008). While factors associated with perinatal mortality are many, complex, and interrelated, this report suggests that mortality can be reduced significantly in resource-poor settings by improving quality of health care. Including the measurement of avoidable deaths in perinatal audit allows the impact of interventions to be more rigorously assessed than by simple measuring the PNMR. (+info)
Managing asthma care.
(24/3566)
This activity is designed for physicians, medical directors, and healthcare policy makers. GOAL: To provide the reader with the tools needed to monitor and manage the care of all enrollees with asthma. OBJECTIVES: 1. Become familiar with a health maintenance organization (HMO)-wide data collection system. 2. Learn the essential elements of asthma care for patients. 3. Learn how to track the implementation of these elements in various HMO settings. (+info)